What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bill Maher Vs Rashida Tlaib (1 Viewer)

IvanKaramazov said:
In a nutshell, Maher criticized BDS.  This made Tlaib mad, so she called for a boycott of Maher's show.  That led to Tlaib, in turn, being condemned by some Jewish group.

This is really pretty boring and  tame as far as "controversies involving Bill Maher and/or Rashida Tlaib" go.
Click to expand...
Par for the course with Democrats and the #1 reason the party can’t get their #### together, they’d rather fight with themselves over small squabbles then come together and attack the bigger issues.  Actually Senator Whitehouse had a perfect perspective on exactly this earlier in Maher’s show.   

 
HellToupee said:
Right away she wants a boycott to shut him down . Have a disagreement and argument but don’t try to silence someone you don’t agree with
Click to expand...
Think you have me on ignore so you won’t see this (I think, don’t really know the ignore rules) but this point is spot on.  The left has absolutely gone off the deep end with these type of reactions.  

 
If you are highly critical of Trump criticizing the media, you should even be more critical of members of congress advocating a boycott against a talk show.  Neither are clear violation of the first Ammendment, but the later is a darker shade of gray.  If Tlaib and friends want to be on record as actively enabling a group which advocates against the existance of the state of Israel, so be it.   They are at least being honest with their anti-semetism.  

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
He is not my cup of tea.  the only time I have any idea what he is up to now is when his antics generate a thread here.  As for her, well I believe she may represent the views of her district.  If one finds her views challenging one may want to keep in mind that she has supporters, the views may be more widespread.  If thy were hers alone that is one thing, if they reflect the views of a district that is another and is more disconcerting or more encouraging depending on one's politics. 
Click to expand...


Encumbrance said:
Yes, her election does depend on her district and I wonder how deeply her district feels about the Palestinian/Israel conflict, a thought which also calls into question a few things about districting and immigration policy if we have entire swaths of people siding with Palestine. 
Click to expand...


identikit said:
IIRC, she won her primary by only 1000ish votes.
Click to expand...
Tlaib won by about 2% over a black woman who took over for long time Congressman John Conyers had to step down following allegations of sexual harassment. It was a big change for the district as I believe Conyers held that spot for 50 years (though there was some redistricting along the way). The district is made up of a sliver of Detroit and several neighboring suburbs. It is as blue as they come- haven't had a Republican Rep since the 40s. However, it is not particularly Arab or Muslim. Dearborn is not part of the district.

I would say the district has 3 groups:

25% working class blue collar whites, the old union block. These people are not sympathetic to Palestine or anything remotely radical

55% working class blue collar blacks, very traditional, socially conservative and religious. I don't think they are sympathetic to Palestine or any radical foreign policy. 

10% upper middle middle class Arabs, the most expensive homes in the district belong in the area with the highest density of Arabs/Muslims and they are likely very sympathetic with Tlaib and Palestine, however Tlaib has taken some heat from them for not being Muslim enough 

10% Hodge podge of Hispanic, poor and some upper middle class white collar white voters who likely have opinions all over the place 

I guess my grand point was I doubt many of her constituents agree with her on a lot of this stuff. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
If you are highly critical of Trump criticizing the media, you should even be more critical of members of congress advocating a boycott against a talk show.  Neither are clear violation of the first Ammendment, but the later is a darker shade of gray. 
Click to expand...
I think it's kind of the opposite of that.  Tlaib is just a fringe member of Congress spouting off thoughtlessly.  While that's not a good thing exactly, she's not in a position to do any actual damage to anybody.  The president on the other hand is, well, the president.  It's a much bigger deal when Trump abuses his power or erodes social and political norms.

 
Ilov80s said:
Tlaib won by about 2% over a black woman who took over for long time Congressman John Conyers had to step down following allegations of sexual harassment. It was a big change for the district as I believe Conyers held that spot for 50 years (though there was some redistricting along the way). The district is made up of a sliver of Detroit and several neighboring suburbs. It is as blue as they come- haven't had a Republican Rep since the 40s. However, it is not particularly Arab or Muslim. Dearborn is not part of the district.

I would say the district has 3 groups:

35% working class blue collar whites, the old union block. These people are not sympathetic to Palestine or anything remotely radical

35% working class blue collar blacks, very traditional, socially conservative and religious. I don't think they are sympathetic to Palestine or any radical foreign policy. 

10% upper middle middle class Arabs, the most expensive homes in the district belong in the area with the highest density of Arabs/Muslims and they are likely very sympathetic with Tlaib and Palestine, however Tlaib has taken some heat from them for not being Muslim enough 

20% Hodge podge of Hispanic, poor and some upper middle class white collar white voters who likely have opinions all over the place 

I guess my grand point was I doubt many of her constituents agree with her on a lot of this stuff. 
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insight into her district.  I suppose I could have looked it up.  I probably should have looked it up, I was making an assumption and it turns out to have been faulty.  Good stuff.

 
jon_mx said:
If you are highly critical of Trump criticizing the media, you should even be more critical of members of congress advocating a boycott against a talk show.  Neither are clear violation of the first Ammendment, but the later is a darker shade of gray.  If Tlaib and friends want to be on record as actively enabling a group which advocates against the existance of the state of Israel, so be it.   They are at least being honest with their anti-semetism.  
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. The President attacking and calling the free press enemies is far, far worse than a junior Congresswoman calling for a boycott. Not even in the same ballpark. Flip that around to if you have a problem with a first term Congresswoman calling for a boycott of a tv show, you should be screaming from the rooftops over the president picking and choosing winners and losers in a capitalistic society and calling the press our enemy. Get the priorities right.

That said, I disagree with Tlaib.

 
dkp993 said:
Separate issue but a good issue to discuss about the dysfunction of Congress.  
Click to expand...
I disagree that its a separate issue. You wrote - 

"Par for the course with Democrats and the #1 reason the party can’t get their #### together, they’d rather fight with themselves over small squabbles then come together and attack the bigger issues"

The article I posted shows this isn't true. The Dems are trying to attack the bigger issues. Unfortunately, they are being thwarted by the Senate.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Thanks for the insight into her district.  I suppose I could have looked it up.  I probably should have looked it up, I was making an assumption and it turns out to have been faulty.  Good stuff.
Click to expand...
No problem- it's kind of a difficult thing to even look up, more the kind of thing one gets from living around there. It's really not a very radical district which makes me wonder how she will do in the next election.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if i cared about the Democratic Party, i'd be torn. I thought nothing would bother me more about it than the old union/teachers/lipservice machine, but i'm afraid the New Puritans do. I'd like to care, but truth is the only way to drag order from the chaos and the victim class has little use for truth. Until they show judgement, they havent the standing to be judgemental, no matter how much right is on their side.

 
whoknew said:
I disagree that its a separate issue. You wrote - 

"Par for the course with Democrats and the #1 reason the party can’t get their #### together, they’d rather fight with themselves over small squabbles then come together and attack the bigger issues"

The article I posted shows this isn't true. The Dems are trying to attack the bigger issues. Unfortunately, they are being thwarted by the Senate.
Click to expand...
Point taken. Obviously I wasn’t clear in my original statement. The Republican Party does a much better job presenting a unified front to the public, they also do a much better job hiding the infighting.    The Democratic Party in my opinion is absolutely doing the wrong thing by latching on the out rage culture, on the surface all the infighting presents an air of discombobulation, this in turn creates a lack of confidence in the direction of the party to those on the fence.   

 
Ilov80s said:
Tlaib won by about 2% over a black woman who took over for long time Congressman John Conyers had to step down following allegations of sexual harassment. It was a big change for the district as I believe Conyers held that spot for 50 years (though there was some redistricting along the way). The district is made up of a sliver of Detroit and several neighboring suburbs. It is as blue as they come- haven't had a Republican Rep since the 40s. However, it is not particularly Arab or Muslim. Dearborn is not part of the district.

I would say the district has 3 groups:

35% working class blue collar whites, the old union block. These people are not sympathetic to Palestine or anything remotely radical

35% working class blue collar blacks, very traditional, socially conservative and religious. I don't think they are sympathetic to Palestine or any radical foreign policy. 

10% upper middle middle class Arabs, the most expensive homes in the district belong in the area with the highest density of Arabs/Muslims and they are likely very sympathetic with Tlaib and Palestine, however Tlaib has taken some heat from them for not being Muslim enough 

20% Hodge podge of Hispanic, poor and some upper middle class white collar white voters who likely have opinions all over the place 

I guess my grand point was I doubt many of her constituents agree with her on a lot of this stuff. 
Click to expand...
Thanks. So this is significant to her re-election because of the primary, then.

 
Amused to Death said:
Strongly disagree. The President attacking and calling the free press enemies is far, far worse than a junior Congresswoman calling for a boycott. Not even in the same ballpark. Flip that around to if you have a problem with a first term Congresswoman calling for a boycott of a tv show, you should be screaming from the rooftops over the president picking and choosing winners and losers in a capitalistic society and calling the press our enemy. Get the priorities right.

That said, I disagree with Tlaib.
Click to expand...
Why?  One is just words, while the other is using their position to advocate action against free speech.  You can criticize the media as evil all day, and the media will still exist tomorrow.  However, advocating boycotts is actively trying to shut someone down.  

 
Encumbrance said:
Thanks. So this is significant to her re-election because of the primary, then.
Click to expand...
Right, though I don't know how many people are paying much attention to this outside of the Muslims/Arabs who are likely to side with Tlaib. The average white and black voters are a lot less likely to see this kind of thing or bother to dig into it. They mostly just want a good economy, improved healthcare, improved education and to get rid of Trump. The Jewish population in the district has to be <1%.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
I think it's kind of the opposite of that.  Tlaib is just a fringe member of Congress spouting off thoughtlessly.  While that's not a good thing exactly, she's not in a position to do any actual damage to anybody.  The president on the other hand is, well, the president.  It's a much bigger deal when Trump abuses his power or erodes social and political norms.
Click to expand...
Trump can't do anything to shut the media up, so i have never understand why Trump being critical of them puts people up in arms.  His position as President is not all that much different as a member of Congress.  In this day and age they can all get the same media coverage.

 
Ilov80s said:
Right, though I don't know how many people are paying much attention to this outside of the Muslims/Arabs who are likely to side with Tlaib. The average white and black voters are a lot less likely to see this kind of thing or bother to dig into it. They mostly just want a good economy, improved healthcare, improved education and to get rid of Trump. 
Click to expand...
That sounds par for the course. That's why I was saying to The General that she might not want this to become the number one story about her. If the person in the primary is more moderate on this issue yet similar to her on economic and social issues, that might swing the primary in the other person's favor. I wasn't assuming, given her election alone actually, that this was any other kind of district but deep blue.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Trump can't do anything to shut the media up, so i have never understand why Trump being critical of them puts people up in arms.  His position as President is not all that much different as a member of Congress.  In this day and age they can all get the same media coverage.
Click to expand...
He has the power of appointment over people who interpret the First Amendment; a large power to have. 

 
jon_mx said:
Why?  One is just words, while the other is using their position to advocate action against free speech.  You can criticize the media as evil all day, and the media will still exist tomorrow.  However, advocating boycotts is actively trying to shut someone down.  
Click to expand...
And the president's words have lead to death threats against members of the media. We are dependent upon our free press, which the president has named as an enemy. He has a duty to uphold the Constitution yet continues to call their integrity into question and has cheered/supported violence against it.

Tlaib called for a boycott.

ETA: That doesn't even include his attempts to bar media outlets that are critical of him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Encumbrance said:
That sounds par for the course. That's why I was saying to The General that she might not want this to become the number one story about her. If the person in the primary is more moderate on this issue yet similar to her on economic and social issues, that might swing it. I wasn't assuming, given her election alone actually, that this was any other kind of district but deep blue.  
Click to expand...
Yep, deep blue for sure but those aren't all the same. I would say to large sections of the district, her being a Muslim is itself a negative. 

 
jon_mx said:
Trump can't do anything to shut the media up, so i have never understand why Trump being critical of them puts people up in arms.  His position as President is not all that much different as a member of Congress.  In this day and age they can all get the same media coverage.
Click to expand...
One problem is, due to Trump's rhetoric, his supporters often believe him over the main stream media.  Factually, this is a problem. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Yep, deep blue for sure but those aren't all the same. I would say to large sections of the district, her being a Muslim is itself a negative. 
Click to expand...
That is really significant, then. So the district is largely comprised of the white working class and black Americans (I would say people of color, but when discussing religions it seems to work in gradients) largely of the Christian faith, then?

 
Amused to Death said:
And has attempted to pick and choose the media that is allowed to cover him. A clear example of intimidation. 
Click to expand...
I think Presidents have leeway with that. If I'm not mistaken, President Obama removed Fox News' press pass. My true concern is his constant vilification of the press coupled with his argument specifically to weaken the protections of the press with respect to libel laws. Both of those are problematic to me, and they make him look more authoritarian than his government is actually running in practice.

 
Encumbrance said:
That is really significant, then. So the district is largely comprised of the white working class and black Americans (I would say people of color, but when discussing religions it seems to work in gradients) largely of the Christian faith, then?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I actually underestimated how black it is, 55% African American. Brenda Jones and Tlaib squared off in the special election in 2016 as well and Jones won by 2%. So they are 1-1 in primary battles. She could unseat Tlaib if she tries again- which I am sure she will since she tried a last minute Independent campaign in 2016.

 
jon_mx said:
If you are highly critical of Trump criticizing the media, you should even be more critical of members of congress advocating a boycott against a talk show.  Neither are clear violation of the first Ammendment, but the later is a darker shade of gray.  If Tlaib and friends want to be on record as actively enabling a group which advocates against the existance of the state of Israel, so be it.   They are at least being honest with their anti-semetism.  
Click to expand...
Wait...what?  You think her calling for a boycott of an opinion show is the same as him calling certain press the enemy of the people?

Also...does the group advocate against the existence of the state of Israel?

 
jon_mx said:
Why?  One is just words, while the other is using their position to advocate action against free speech.  You can criticize the media as evil all day, and the media will still exist tomorrow.  However, advocating boycotts is actively trying to shut someone down.  
Click to expand...
As shown in the link I have posted earlier...he has called for boycotts of things too.

 
Juxtatarot said:
One problem is, due to Trump's rhetoric, his supporters often believe him over the main stream media.  Factually, this is a problem. 
Click to expand...
Being one-sided is almost as bad as being factually wrong.  There is a reason why people buy into Trump's rhetoric.  

 
Encumbrance said:
Ah, okay. The issue, as it seems, is that she was either was going on behalf of or was paying for the trip called BDS. BDS is an organization that stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (of Israel) and is a Paslestinian-run group that calls for all three of these things until Israel is in compliance with "international law" with regard to certain hot-button issues. You can find them right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions

But the group, of course, is controversial in its platform and donations. Who are they giving cover and money to? I contest that the story was different at the local level and that she actually doesn't want the mainstream press sniffing around this, or it could get ugly in a hurry for her. 
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

If she’s a lunatic I’d much rather see it exposed sooner than later. But yeah she might not be on that plan. 

What little I have heard of this woman is she is on the fringe of many issues. Hard for some rookie to make news so I have barely heard her name other than Trump has made it like she’s the next Dem nom for President with his squad bull#### and I think she’s the one that said a naughty word when she got elected :gasp:

I’d assume she’s all ready for an Israel / Palestine debate. If her side of this has a leg to stand on she should be jumping all over this opportunity. 

It’s not like anything that is said matters anymore in the Trump era began so just move right past the BDS thing unless she’s like a founder member or something is what I’m telling her if I’m her adviser. 

 
sho nuff said:
Wait...what?  You think her calling for a boycott of an opinion show is the same as him calling certain press the enemy of the people?

Also...does the group advocate against the existence of the state of Israel?
Click to expand...
No.  I think calling for a boycott is worse.  Unless Trump really means it and is calling for people to attack and intimidate the media.  Then that would be far worse.   As it is, it is just a bunch of non-sense rhetoric like calling Trump a fascist.  

 
jon_mx said:
No.  I think calling for a boycott is worse.  Unless Trump really means it and is calling for people to attack and intimidate the media.  Then that would be far worse.   As it is, it is just a bunch of non-sense rhetoric like calling Trump a fascist.  
Click to expand...
Its an opinion show...calling for a boycott of it or Laura Ingraham or other shows like that is nowhere near the level of the things he has done with the power of POTUS behind it.

Its laughable to even suggest it man.

 
Let's get to the crux of the matter and maybe ren can help me out here. "Apartheid," per BDS, really is a clever activist description of the Israel/Palestine conflict. For a one state solution, one question: How would their First Amendment work?

Given they're also supporters of "right of return," how does that affect Israel as both a democracy and as a functioning state.

Here is the platform of BDS, culled from BDSmovement.net

What does BDS aim to achieve? Does it call for a one state or a two state solution?

The BDS movement aims to pressure Israel to respect international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
International law recognises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel.

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

These are three basic rights without which the Palestinian people cannot exercise its inalienable right to self-determination.

The BDS movement does not advocate for a particular solution to the conflict and does not call for either a “one state solution” or a “two state solution”. Instead, BDS focuses on the realization of basic rights and the implementation of international law.

 
I think her calling for a boycott of Maher is sort of a red herring when you consider the issue group that was either funding or supporting her trip over there.

 
sho nuff said:
Its an opinion show...calling for a boycott of it or Laura Ingraham or other shows like that is nowhere near the level of the things he has done with the power of POTUS behind it.

Its laughable to even suggest it man.
Click to expand...
I am not saying anything the president has done.  I was saying that those who were outraged at Trump for being critical of the media, should be also outraged in this case.  Nothing else, so please do not add things which I have not said.   

 
jon_mx said:
Which is worse than being critical, IMHO.    
Click to expand...
And he has done both...so how again is her's worse?  And its not just being critical.  Proclaiming them the enemy of the people and turning his base and supporters completely against all media is quite dangerous.

 
jon_mx said:
No.  I think calling for a boycott is worse.  Unless Trump really means it and is calling for people to attack and intimidate the media.  Then that would be far worse.   As it is, it is just a bunch of non-sense rhetoric like calling Trump a fascist.  
Click to expand...
Well aside from praising violence against a reporter ("Anyone who can body slam is my type!"), Trump himself has called for several boycotts, including the NFL, AT&T, CNN.

 
jon_mx said:
Being one-sided is almost as bad as being factually wrong.  There is a reason why people buy into Trump's rhetoric.  
Click to expand...
I believe the main stream media is biased.  I wouldn't go as far as saying they are "one-sided".  Also, it's often inappropriate to cover Trump in a way that balances positive and negative.  He says and does stupid things too frequently.

 
jon_mx said:
Being one-sided is almost as bad as being factually wrong.  There is a reason why people buy into Trump's rhetoric.  
Click to expand...
So they can be one-sided as well as wrong?

This is about context here in what Im saying...he is proclaiming things often against all facts.  Many believe it...that group is being both one sided and wrong.  And its a large group.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

belljr
Governor Abbott questions
Replies
8
Views
379
Osaurus
Osaurus
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
582
(HULK)
(HULK)
GordonGekko
Schumer's Radical Abortion Gamble Of "Up To The Moment Of Birth" Will Backfire (5/11/22 00:52 PST)
Replies
19
Views
706
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top